RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

I understand and appreciate that you come from a potentially different culture of play where what I and others are describing is foreign to you. However, I have seen a lot of such discussions in D&D all the time at nearly every table at have sat at since I started gaming at the very tail end of 2e D&D, a few months shy of 3e D&D's launch. So the idea of "negotiation" matches pretty well with my own experiences. It's also possible that if I sat down at a table with you to play, you would see no negotiation transpire but I would.

I'm coming to feel it is closely tied to the kind of play a group is aiming to achieve. I've seen year-long campaigns go by without observing anything I would call in-the-moment negotiation. And I've played in one-shots where I've observed negotiation in well-nigh every moment.

One could think that it's down to the people in the group, but while no doubt predelictions will draw folk to one mode more often than another, I've seen this difference in the same group playing different RPGs. It feels like negotiation is implicit in all RPG, and explicit at frequencies that differ by RPG. Perhaps it's driven by both?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I literally don't have these discussions in D&D. During the 31 sessions of my campaign no one has ever questioned a DC I have set. Now it is of course possible that sometimes something needs to be clarified or even "negotiated" but most of the time, not. In the Blades it is the designed default approach for every roll.

Same, though I can’t say it’s never happened but it’s exceptionally rare.

I will add this - in 5e d&d the dc in the one thing the mechanic itself doesn’t typically set. It leaves setting that up to the DM and gives very minimal guidance there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver would you say your games are purely GM says? The players never or rarely have a say about anything other than what their characters do?

How much does this authority extend across play? Does the GM set the goals of play? Do the players have any say there?

Would you see the players’ input in that area and the GM’s response as an attempt to reach agreement?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver would you say your games are purely GM says? The players never or rarely have a say about anything other than what their characters do?

I mean that's how D&D works.

How much does this authority extend across play? Does the GM set the goals of play? Do the players have any say there?

Would you see the players’ input in that area and the GM’s response as an attempt to reach agreement?

I'd say my game is relatively player driven (just asked one player, they agreed.) That driving just happens via the actions of the characters. Where they go, how they respond to situations, who they ally with etc. Instead of players having meta negotiations with the GM, the characters are having IC negotiations with NPCs. It is rather sandboxy game and there is not any sort of GM dictated overarching "main plot", though of course there is stuff going on in the world that the GM has invented. Basic "prep situations, not plots" stuff.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean that's how D&D works.

Then how can it be player driven as you go on to describe?

I'd say my game is relatively player driven (just asked one player, they agreed.) That driving just happens via the actions of the characters. Where they go, how they respond to situations, who they ally with etc. Instead of players having meta negotiations with the GM, the characters are having IC negotiations with NPCs. It is rather sandboxy game and there is not any sort of GM dictated overarching "main plot", though of course there is stuff going on in the world that the GM has invented. Basic "prep situations, not plots" stuff.

I’m personally uninterested in the distinction you’re making here by invoking “meta”. I’m literally talking about the game itself and the players.

If the players are driving the game, then they have input, right? Clearly, so does the GM. How are these different inputs handled? Surely there is some form of agreement that’s made, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Then how can it be player driven as you go on to describe?

I literally just described it to you.

I’m personally uninterested in the distinction you’re making here by invoking “meta”. I’m literally talking about the game itself and the players.

If the players are driving the game, then they have input, right? Clearly, so does the GM. How are these different inputs handled? Surely there is some form of agreement that’s made, right?

I really don't understand what you're confused about. The game follows the characters and the players control the characters. Ergo, the players can affect the direction of the game this way.

 

[FrogReaver]

So @Crimson Longinus and @FrogReaver would you say your games are purely GM says?

No and that mischaracterization is quite offensive.

The players never or rarely have a say about anything other than what their characters do?

IMO, that's not the best description. I'd phrase it that Players have a say over many fictional aspects via their direct say over their PC actions.

There are more ways to have 'a say' than authorial control, or authorial negotiation, etc - which is something that always seems to get lost when someone starts questions what players have 'say' over.

How much does this authority extend across play? Does the GM set the goals of play? Do the players have any say there?

1. All that is set via a complicated and messy social process that doesn't look exactly the same across any 2 groups. In short it depends on the particular groups social contract.

2. I also think it really depends on what one means by 'goals of play' - which is a term that's going alot of heavy lifting in your question. Is the goal of D&D play to play an adventurer that has adventures or is it something more specific like -to try and save the elven kingdom Sylvanland (something my elf PC might have written on his background as a reason for why he adventures but that the other PC's may not care about at all) or to find my father's murderer - something the noble background fighter has indicated in background at character creation he is interested in, but that the other PC's may not be particularly vested in doing, etc?

I would summarize the goals of D&D play as being to play and adventurer that wants to adventure with the other PC's. Beyond that the players may find certain causes/goals to take up as they adventure. The DM may also take parts of the players backgrounds and weave opportunities to learn more info or interact with them into the narrative.

Would you see the players’ input in that area and the GM’s response as an attempt to reach agreement?

Possibly, it really depends on the specifics.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then how can it be player driven as you go on to describe?

Just a guess but being player driven means something different to you than it does to us.

I’m personally uninterested in the distinction you’re making here by invoking “meta”. I’m literally talking about the game itself and the players.

How one has a say, how the game is player driven - whether or not you personally are interested in those distinctions - they certainly matter just as much as who gets to author what content, IMO of course.

If the players are driving the game, then they have input, right? Clearly, so does the GM. How are these different inputs handled? Surely there is some form of agreement that’s made, right?

They've agreed to play the game. They've agreed to some social contract for doing so. Generally speaking those 2 agreements handle how the different inputs are handled. This is all extremely basic stuff. I'm happy to help, but it puzzles me as to why we keep rehashing these same questions every thread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I literally just described it to you.

I really don't understand what you're confused about. The game follows the characters and the players control the characters. Ergo, the players can affect the direction of the game this way.

The confusion is because when I asked if your game was purely “GM says” you replied:

I mean that's how D&D works.

So I don’t really know if the confusion’s entirely on my side.

No and that mischaracterization is quite offensive.

Please stop claiming offense at everything. It’s getting old and seems more about you attempting to get opinions that differ from yours as somehow wrong.

Also, @Crimson Longinus didn’t seem to take offense. He claimed that’s how D&D works.

Additionally, I’ve played plenty of GM-led games and it’s a perfectly valid way to play. Your insistence that it’s somehow bad so that you can claim offense is actually more offensive because it involves an actual value judgment. GM led play is valid and fun, and there’s nothing wrong with it.

Seriously… stop with the offense taking. It’s a crap tactic and you make odd claims as a result.

IMO, that's not the best description. I'd phrase it that Players have a say over many fictional aspects via their direct say over their PC actions.

What distinction are you making here? I asked if players have more say than what they can have their characters do. So what other way can they have a say?

There are more ways to have 'a say' than authorial control, or authorial negotiation, etc - which is something that always seems to get lost when someone starts questions what players have 'say' over.

I didn’t mention authorial control. There are other ways to have a say. By which I mean there other ways to have input over the content of play beyond action declarations and setting aside authorial control.

1. All that is set via a complicated and messy social process that doesn't look exactly the same across any 2 groups. In short it depends on the particular groups social contract.

Would you say that these complicated and messy processes are an attempt to reach an agreement? Agreed upon terms, so to speak?

2. I also think it really depends on what one means by 'goals of play' - which is a term that's going alot of heavy lifting in your question. Is the goal of D&D play to play an adventurer that has adventures or is it something more specific like -to try and save the elven kingdom Sylvanland (something my elf PC might have written on his background as a reason for why he adventures but that the other PC's may not care about at all) or to find my father's murderer - something the noble background fighter has indicated in background at character creation he is interested in, but that the other PC's may not be particularly vested in doing, etc?

It can be any or all of those things. Who gets to decide those goals? How? What limits may be in place? How are these decisions made?

I would summarize the goals of D&D play as being to play and adventurer that wants to adventure with the other PC's. Beyond that the players may find certain causes/goals to take up as they adventure. The DM may also take parts of the players backgrounds and weave opportunities to learn more info or interact with them into the narrative.

So there’s a lot of consideration by the different participants on exactly how all this work?

Possibly, it really depends on the specifics.

Sounds like each play group kind of figures out what's best for them and then agrees on it, huh?

Just a guess but being player driven means something different to you than it does to us.

Maybe. I feel it’s pretty self explanatory, but I’m not gonna assume I know what you mean.

How one has a say, how the game is player driven - whether or not you personally are interested in those distinctions - they certainly matter just as much as who gets to author what content, IMO of course.

What I’m not interested in for this discussion is character decisions. I’m literally talking about playing the game… so the idea of “meta” is pointless.

They've agreed to play the game. They've agreed to some social contract for doing so. Generally speaking those 2 agreements handle how the different inputs are handled. This is all extremely basic stuff. I'm happy to help, but it puzzles me as to why we keep rehashing these same questions every thread.

So what do you call it when a group of people all work to agree on something?

I’ll give you a hint… it rhymes with shmegotiation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I'm not saying that something like this never happens, but I don't think it is that common and I definitely do not see it as some sort of defining core feature. Most of the play is the GM describing the situation, and the players saying what their characters do, and the GM describing how that affects the situation. Sometimes we roll some dice to establish what happens. I wouldn't use a word "negotiation" to describe this. I also wouldn't call discussion that is just about clarifying the facts a negotiation.

I on the other hand would say that the vast majority of play is ENTIRELY this sort of thing. Some of it is a bit less explicit than 'why is the DC 19?'. In fact most of it is players making assumptions about the fiction and acting on them. MOST of the time the GM either doesn't explicitly see this, or there's this bit of pushing game. I mean, if you play with teens you will see it VERY EXPLICITLY when you get things like "well, actually swords don't work that way..." or something like that. Again, not really the typical form.

The point is, in OUR play at least, there's nothing BUT negotiation. A lot of it gets built into indy games because that's the understanding of modern RPG designers, that this is what the rules are ABOUT. So, BitD has a process of negotiating an action roll in which the GM gets to state what position and effect are, but the players can question that, and a lot of things are expected to have certain values, or the player can push back by asking what the GM thinks these values are for different options. PbtA games instead might negotiate which moves, if any, are triggered, or maybe which sort of DD roll is going to be made, etc. Or in either game the players may push back directly on the fiction, much like they can in D&D.